2 Moms Made Twin Monkeys

‘DNA Swap’ Technology Is a New Cloning Challenge

HILLSBORO, Ore. — Gabrielle Mileti
says it’s tough being a mother of a child with mitochondrial DNA disorder. The
condition literally saps her son of his energy.

New research on monkeys doesn’t hold
out promise for her son, Joey. Instead, it raises new ethical issues by
attempting to prevent the disorder in new babies — by giving them two mothers.

“Daily tasks such as feeding,
walking and even playing are an extreme challenge,” with Joey, age 5, Mileti
said.

Mitochondria are often called a
“cell’s powerhouse.” They produce 90% of the energy a body uses. Joey’s
energy-making mitochondria are suffering from the equivalent of an energy
“brown-out.”

“Socially, interacting with ‘normal’
children and their families becomes more and more difficult,” said Mileti.
“Joey cannot do the things that developing kindergarten-age children can.”

Children with severe mitochondrial
defects hit developmental stages late — or never at all. Joey was first
diagnosed with the disease at age 2.

The Miletis are parishioners at St.
John and Paul in Larchmont, N.Y. The parish recently raised funds for research
into his disease. Currently, there is no cure, and Mileti isn’t likely to back
any ethically questionable approach.

“We have dedicated our lives to
three things since the diagnosis,” said Mileti. “God and the Catholic Church,
finding a cure for mitochondrial disease and giving Joey the best life he can
possibly have.”

A new technology tested on monkeys
at the Oregon National Primate Research Center in Hillsboro, near Portland,
addresses the problem at its root, but raises ethical issues.

Think of it as Brave
New World meets The Matrix.

In the Aldous Huxley novel, children
are produced in “hatcheries.” In the movie version, machines power themselves
by using the energy generated by people’s bodies.

In Oregon, scientists bred monkeys
in a lab after replacing the “batteries” in their originating egg cells.

“We’ve been able to replace the
mitochondrial DNA in the egg, and it’s pretty efficient in terms of the
procedure itself,” said Shoukhrat Mitalipov, who did the research. The monkey
embryos created from those eggs “have come to term, and we had healthy
infants.”

He added, however, that his
experiment didn’t use monkeys with mitochondrial problems. “We used just
healthy monkeys, just with two different types of mitochondrial DNA.”

How big of a breakthrough is this
research?

Said Father Tad Pacholczyk
(pronounced puh-HOLE-chick) of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in
Philadelphia, “It’s a kind of next step in a long train of developments
involving nuclear transfer.” Nuclear transfer is the central process involved
in cloning.

The difference between cloning and
the new “DNA swap” technology is that scientists didn’t make a new monkey —
they made a new monkey egg.

That difference affects the ethics
of the situation.

“Normally, when you do cloning,”
said Father Pacholczyk, “you are making an organism. They didn’t do that here.
They didn’t make the organism until they did in vitro fertilization and put the
sperm and egg together. This is a variation on the theme.”

Essentially, the process, if it were
used on humans, would use two biological mothers to create one egg. One
mother’s problematic mitochondria would be replaced with the healthy mother’s.
That egg would then become a new person with two mothers.

Mito Bucks

The new technology comes at a time
when mitochondrial disease is increasingly in the news, although its still
uncertain what promise it holds.

Cliff Gorski, director of
communications at the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation in Pittsburgh,
said the research is interesting but not necessarily a help to those who have
the disease already.

“Our organization deals with people
who are currently affected by mitochondrial disease,” he said. “As I understand
it, this research probably wouldn’t affect anybody that we currently deal
with.”

Boston Red Sox outfielder Rocco
Baldelli was thought to suffer from a mitochondrial disorder until he was
rediagnosed last year with a treatable disease.

Recent studies have linked
mitochondrial disorders to a number of genetic conditions that often present
themselves later in life, such as Lou Gehrig’s disease, Parkinson’s and
Alzheimer’s. The cachet that comes with “big name” diseases is attracting more
attention — and more funding — to mitochondrial disease foundations and
interests.

U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., is
sponsoring a bill — H.R. 3502 — that would establish a national office for
mitochondrial disorders at the National Institutes of Health.

The Register asked if the office
would fund research on humans like the “DNA swap.”

“Dig it out and read it,” his press
secretary, Mike Decesare, said. “We’re
doing a bunch of other things right now.”

By our reading, it seems that the
McDermott-proposed office would fund this kind of research. Mitalipov said that
his project was mostly funded by the National Institutes of Health even without
the special office.

It might surprise constituents to
know that the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Child Health and Human
Development was funding cloning experiments on monkeys.

Ethical Questions

Mitalipov, who did the research,
sees the new technology as an ethical breakthrough for humans.

He said the way in vitro
fertilization would normally be used to solve a problem like mitochondrial
disorders is that a lab “creates multiple embryos and then the doctor chooses
which don’t carry the disease at all and then uses those. The rest would be
thrown away — killed.”

With the new “DNA swapping”
procedure, “We will correct one embryo. There will be no extras created,” said
Mitalipov. “No embryo destruction. Ethically, our approach is solving many
ethical questions.”

Not so fast, says Father Pacholczyk,
who earned a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Yale University, then did postdoctoral
research at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School before
studying theology in Rome.

There are two aspects of the
situation to be considered: the technology itself and the end product.

First is the problem of the process
itself.

Father
Pacholczyk said, “The technology would promote the use of in vitro
fertilization, the making of test-tube babies, and that technology is in and of
itself invariably immoral. It’s a technology that involves fundamental
violations against the good of human sexuality and human life, as well.”

But then he addressed the product of
the process. “What you’re doing here is a kind of an egg construction project,”
he said. “The egg that’s used to create a human being actually comes from two
women. So you in a sense are creating children who have two mothers, and, in a
sense, diluting parenthood here by doing this because you aren’t using simply
one woman’s egg.”

Why
is that a problem? Because “all of us are entitled to come into the world with
a direct and linear relationship to a mother and a father,” said Father
Pacholczyk.

“Knowing
one’s origins is hugely important to all of us. As kids we all start to wonder,
‘Where did I come from? How did I get here?’ If there’s uncertainty about this,
it can be devastating for a child.”

Adopted
children and orphans don’t have the same sorts of questions as test-tube
babies, he said.

“Adopted
children know they came from a father and a mother,” said the priest. “They may
not have had the opportunity to meet them due to circumstances beyond their
control. But they weren’t circumstances chosen against the child in some way.”

For
children of anonymous sperm or egg donors, that’s not the case. “This is the
kind of thing that weighs on them for years and decades,” he said. “In the case
of the anonymous sperm donor, you have a decision made by the donor and the
agency involved to make sure this information is not made available.”

Changing Descendants

Father Pacholczyk raised one other
ethical issue in the “DNA swapping” procedure.

“By doing all of this, you are
modifying not just the genetic traits of the one individual that you created by
in vitro,” he said. “You are also modifying the traits of all his or her
descendents. We call this a change in the germ line.”

Mitalipov argued that the research
he did suggests that you could correct for one defect and “do no harm” in the
germ line.

Said Father Pacholczyk, “Any time
you undertake a change of this sort, you have to understand the magnitude of
the changes. You need to be very certain that this is something of zero risk or
very low risk” of passing on abnormalities for generations.

Comments

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.